Supreme Court Allows Management Appeal Against Restoration of Suspended Principal in Disciplinary Enquiry. Preliminary Fact-Finding Enquiry Upheld; Restoration Set Aside and Salary Payment Directed Under Section 79(3) Andhra Pradesh Education Act.

Case Note & Summary

The litigation arose from disciplinary proceedings against the Principal of CSI EVA MAIR Technical Institute, Secunderabad, run by the Diocese of Medak. The appellant was Chairman of the Diocesan Executive Committee, and the respondent was the Principal. In June 1995, based on a report by the Socio Economic Board, the Executive Committee resolved to appoint an Enquiry Commission to inquire into alleged acts of commission and omission by the respondent. The terms of reference included wilful insubordination, unauthorised appointments, financial irregularities, and derogatory remarks against the Bishop and administration. The appellant suspended the respondent pending enquiry and constituted a Commission of Enquiry on 12 June 1995. The Commission submitted a report on 21 September 1995, finding sufficient material in support of the charges. On 5 November 1995, the Executive Committee issued a show cause notice to the respondent regarding dismissal from service. The respondent then filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the suspension order and constitution of the Enquiry Commission, alleging mala fides and vague terms of reference. The appellant's counter stated that the Enquiry Commission was only a fact-finding body and a formal enquiry would follow. A Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as premature on 13 November 1995. The respondent filed a writ appeal. Meanwhile, the appellant appointed an Enquiry Officer on 29 December 1995. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal on 1 February 1996, holding that the terms of reference were vague, there was an element of mala fides, and the suspension order had lapsed on 12 October 1995, entitling the respondent to restoration as Principal. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was correct in quashing the preliminary enquiry and ordering restoration. The appellant argued that the Division Bench misdirected itself on the legal position; at the preliminary enquiry stage no formal charge or participation was required; and in view of serious charges, restoration should not have been ordered, relying on M. Chandrasekhara Rao v. Sri Sarvodaya College and Dr. Philomena v. Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Supreme Court held that the purpose of the Commission was only a preliminary fact-finding enquiry to ascertain whether there was truth in the complaints and enough material to prove misconduct. At that stage, no formal charge was required and participation of the respondent was not necessary. The Executive Committee had broadly indicated the nature and scope of enquiry, and a copy of terms of reference was served on the respondent to enable her to put forward explanation. There was hardly any role for the court at that stage; the Single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition as premature, and the Division Bench should not have set aside that order and quashed the constitution of the Commission of Enquiry, especially since the Executive Committee had already decided to hold a regular full-fledged enquiry and appointed an Enquiry Officer. Regarding restoration, the Court noted the serious charges of administrative and financial irregularities. It referred to Section 79(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act and the two High Court decisions, which held that where grave charges of misconduct exist, restoration or reinstatement is not automatic even if the suspension period expires; the court may direct payment of salary and allowances instead to balance interests. The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the direction for restoration of the respondent as Principal and instead directed the appellant to continue paying full salary and allowances to the respondent until the enquiry was over. It further directed the appellant to conclude the enquiry within four months and the respondent to cooperate. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. The direction for restoration of Respondent No.1 as Principal was set aside. The appellant was directed to pay full salary and allowances to Respondent No.1 till the enquiry is over, and to conclude the enquiry within four months. Respondent No.1 was directed to cooperate with the enquiry. No order as to costs.

Law Points